A Nova Scotia brewery has been found in violation of provincial liquor regulations after failing to maintain “orderly control” of its premises in a case involving the tragic death of its brewmaster.
The Nova Scotia Regulatory and Appeals Board ruled that Route 19 Brewing Inc. contravened section 64(1) of the Liquor Licensing Regulations by allowing activities that were “detrimental to the orderly control and operation of the licensed premises” on the night its brewmaster suffered fatal injuries from a fall.
The case centered on D.L., Route 19’s brewmaster since the brewery opened in 2019, who died from multiple blunt force injuries consistent with a fall from a height. He was found critically injured on the brewery premises after having consumed alcohol there following his work shift.
Background of the incident
On July 13, 2023, D.L. had been working on a “Canning Day” at Route 19 until approximately 6:00 p.m. After his shift ended, he remained on the premises socializing with one of the brewery’s owners and guests. During this time, he consumed alcohol and his blood alcohol concentration was later determined to be 0.276g/100ml, more than three times the legal limit to drive.
Video surveillance showed D.L. entering a storage closet with roof access at 10:31 p.m. After he didn’t return, he was discovered approximately an hour later by the front-of-house manager “in a pool of blood” at the base of the brewery silo. According to the Medical Examiner’s report, the roof access hatch, which is normally closed, was found open after D.L.’s accident.
The Board determined that D.L. likely went to the roof from the storage closet and fell from that height. D.L. was the only employee with his own key to the storage closet on the upper floor.
What the Board found
The Alcohol, Gaming, Fuel and Tobacco (AGFT) division of the Department of Service Nova Scotia had alleged three violations of liquor regulations:
- Failure to ensure a person apparently under the influence was not permitted in or served in the licensed premises (section 61)
- Permitting activity detrimental to orderly control of the premises (section 64)
- Permitting an employee to consume liquor while on duty (section 76)
The Board upheld only the second allegation, finding that the brewery had failed to control access to restricted areas and had blurred the line between D.L.’s role as brewmaster and as a patron.
“The Board concludes that the line between Mr. [L.’s] role as the Brewmaster and as a ‘customer’ of the restaurant after his daily work was finished was completely blurred by the privileges he was afforded while he was socializing at the restaurant,” the decision stated.
Issues with premises control
Several problematic activities were identified by the Board:
- D.L. was allowed to access the manufacturing areas and closed portions of the premises after hours while having consumed alcohol
- He poured beer for himself and others behind the bar, which is not permitted for patrons
- He conducted an impromptu brewery tour for other customers despite having been drinking
- He had unrestricted access to the entire premises, including areas closed to the public
The Board noted: “Whether or not the Licensee believed Mr. [L.] had reached a dangerous level of impairment, his unfettered access created a significant safety risk and contributed to the unknown sequence of events that culminated in Mr. [L.] being found alone and critically injured.”
Due diligence defence rejected
While the Board accepted a due diligence defence for the other alleged violations, it rejected this defence for the section 64 violation.
“The Board is not convinced on a balance of probabilities that the Licensee took all reasonable steps to prevent this violation or can defend it based on an honest but mistaken belief of fact,” the decision stated.
The Board found that Route 19 could have taken reasonable steps to prevent the violation, including formally assigning a server to track consumption and restricting access to manufacturing areas after hours.
“If Mr. [L.] was not on duty, he should not have a reason to be working in or around the brewery. If those areas were closed to the public, he should not have been permitted to access them, at will, after he transitioned from being on duty to off duty,” the Board explained.
Other allegations dismissed
The Board dismissed the allegation that Route 19 violated section 76 by allowing D.L. to consume alcohol while on duty. It accepted testimony that D.L. had completed his work for the day and was socializing as a patron when he began drinking.
The Board also found that while D.L. was intoxicated on the premises—a technical violation of section 61—the brewery’s staff had an “honest but mistaken belief” that he was not intoxicated. This established a due diligence defence against that violation.
“The Board finds that, as the responsible employees at Route 19, [staff] did not know and could not reasonably have known, Mr. [L.’s] degree of intoxication,” the decision noted.
Special relationship contributed to problem
The Board acknowledged that D.L.’s special status and relationship with the brewery contributed to the lack of proper control.
“Mr. [L.] was a trusted senior employee, like a father figure and friend to other staff,” the decision stated. It noted that immediately after he finished work and began consuming alcohol, “he should have been treated like a patron.”
The Board emphasized that the Licensee “must empower their managers and bartenders to enforce the rules, no matter who the patrons are.”
One staff member’s testimony highlighted this issue when she commented on “the absurdity of disciplining” D.L., which the Board said “highlighted this lack of a boundary.”
Decision on penalties pending
The Board reserved its decision on penalties, noting that it would schedule a further process for both parties to provide additional submissions on what action should be taken regarding Route 19’s license.
Under the Liquor Control Act, the Board may impose conditions on a license, rescind or amend conditions, suspend all or part of a license, cancel all or part of a license, or order any other remedy it deems appropriate.
This was the first disciplinary matter for Route 19 under the Act since receiving its licenses in 2018.
For more information, see The Liquor Control Act and the Liquor Licensing Regulations (Re), 2025 NSRAB 27 (CanLII).
